Most serious games have been developed without a proper and comprehensive design theory. To contribute to the development of such a theory, this article presents the underlying design philosophy of LEVEE PATROLLER, a game to train levee patrollers in the Netherlands. This philosophy stipulates that the design of a digital serious game is a multiobjective problem in which trade-offs need to be made. Making these trade-offs takes place in a design space defined by three equally important components: (a) Play, (b) Meaning, and (c) Reality. The various tensions between these three components result in design dilemmas and trilemmas that make it difficult to balance a serious game. Each type of tension is illustrated with one or more examples from the design of LEVEE PATROLLER.
LINK
Most educational or training games, also referred to as serious games, have been developed without an underlying design theory. In order to make a contribution to the development of such a theory, we present the underlying design philosophy of Levee Patroller, a 3D first-person game used to train levee patrollers in the Netherlands. This approach stipulates that the design of a serious game is a multi-objective problem where trade-offs need to be made. Making these trade-offs takes place in a 'design space' defined by three general boundary criteria: 1. fun (game), 2. learning (pedagogy), and 3. validity (reality). The various tensions between these three criteria make it difficult to 'balance' or create harmony in a serious game. We illustrate this process with a discussion on the design of Levee Patroller. In addition, we translate the aforementioned general design criteria into a number of concrete design requirements for serious games.
In deze rede wil ik ingaan op de paradox van serious games. Over het spel en de knikkers. Het lijkt tegenstrijdig dat je met een spel naast plezier ook serieuze verandering of kennisoverdracht wilt bewerkstelligen. De paradox gaat echter nog een stap verder, want voor wie is het spel eigenlijk en van wie zijn dan de knikkers. In ons vakgebied is de partij die het spel ontwikkelt veelal een andere dan de partij die het spel speelt en zelfs binnen de partij van potentiële spelers wordt er gewezen naar medespelers: “het zou toch zo goed zijn voor de buurman"
